If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(I Heart Chaos)   You remember that time in the 10th to 12th centuries when the Christian church had no problem marrying gay couples? Yeah, that was a pretty cool time   (iheartchaos.com) divider line 211
    More: Cool, holy orders, Roman army unit types, Sinai, European integration, pagan, St. Catherine  
•       •       •

19023 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2012 at 9:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-11 10:30:11 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Gwendolyn: I can't find anything about Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John. I'd love to have another talking point against the nut-job evangelicals but people seem to like to re-write history for this stuff.

Wikipedia says Basil I had two wives, both female, and nine kids. No mention of John.


Dude, it's right there in the credits. Basil Fawlty, played by John Cleese. Don't make me link to IMDB...
 
2012-05-11 10:44:26 AM

Devolving_Spud: Eshkar: Devolving_Spud: Can I pay you to have Christmas dinner with my family?

And where can I subscribe to your newsletter?


sarcasm?

Absolutely not!

My mom and her husband are born-again evangelicals. Gays (me) are going to burn, dinosaurs are tricks of Satan, etc. But they are far from stupid people and can recite Scripture from one end to the other. But they miss the actual historical context, like what you cited, which makes all the difference.

I can't sit and argue the Bible or What Jesus Said with them when they bring it up (which is often). It would be helpful to have you (or someone like you) there!


I am so sorry. I don't think they would listen to me, I am gay, and Jewish, and studying to be a Rabbi.
 
2012-05-11 11:23:24 AM
If President Obama can change his mind about same-sex marriage, why can't the Catholic church?

/personally doesn't particularly care who marries who, and of which sex(es) and/or species(es), if any, who one's partner(s) is(are).
 
2012-05-11 01:26:52 PM

HempHead: MasterThief: As one of the few Catholics on Fark, I would desperately like for Boswell to have been right, and for the prohibition on gay marriage to have been a 14th Century social custom that somehow got put into the teaching of the Church.

Wasn't celibacy just a social custom that also ended up in the teachings of the Church?

Remember that in 1095, Pope Urban II decreed: "Married priests who ignore the celibacy laws should be imprisoned for the good of their souls, and their wives and children to be sold into slavery, and the money to go to church coffers".


Not exactly. True, many of the apostles were married (including Peter), and for a time the early Church allowed married priests and bishops. But Jesus himself never married, and approvingly spoke of "those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 19:12) St. Paul emphasized that marriage can be a "distraction" when it comes to serving God, and recommended against marriage for those who want to serve God in religious life, though he told those who were already married to stay married (1 Corinthians 7:25-40). Church councils in the fourth century at Elvira and Carthage laid down celibacy as a rule for clergy, and even those clergy who came into the Church married were instructed not to have intercourse or have more children. There were also papal decrees on celibacy as early as 385 AD, right around the time when Christianity was become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, this advice wasn't heeded - priests and bishops were not only getting married, but having affairs, begetting illegitimate children, giving away Church property to their families, even selling Church offices among family members. It was a slow-motion disaster. And it was actually Pope Gregory VII who mandated priestly celibacy in 1074 as part of a larger reform movement within the Church.

Still, priestly celibacy is considered a "discipline" - an ideal the Church follows for theological (and practical) reasons, but not an absolute requirement. (Priests of certain Eastern Orthodox Churches that have maintained communion with Rome are allowed to marry before ordination, and married former Anglican priests and bishops who have joined the Catholic Church stay married).
 
2012-05-11 03:39:33 PM

LovingTeacher: I'm sorry but from what I've seen the primary religious teaching is "if you don't believe correctly you are going to hell". That goes for most religions not just christianity American Christian Fundamentalists


FTFY. Just because that's all you see in the news doesn't mean that's what Christianity is.

What you see today is not the original, core beliefs and practices, but a bastardization that started around 325 AD.
 
2012-05-11 03:55:33 PM

steamingpile: WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Yeah that's not correct, but thanks for playing.

It is. The depictions of Basil I and John are consistent with a good number of other depictions dating as far back a few centuries before their time. Among historians it's pretty much been a settled matter for a few decades now. The real fun is what was going on in places like France where you have official church records of unions between two men. Also there's a few here and there across Europe, but for the most part most have shown up in France.

Arkanaut: TFA seems to be referring to this guy: Link; the wiki doesn't seem to have any reference to homosexuality or "his companion John".

TFA basically just quotes the work of historian John Boswell. Whose work is well known and fairly well regarded, except by those who don't like being told the past isn't exactly how they imagine it to be.

Look I know you want to believe this with your nylon fetish and all but if religion wouldn't accept divorce then why would they accept same sex at a time when it could be a criminal offense.

Don't push this it makes you stupid.


Religion accepts divorce,and always has...it just costs more when it's "forbidden."
Annulment, anyone? Just make a suitable donation to the Papacy, or bribe a handful of cardinals.
 
2012-05-11 04:02:09 PM

ZeroCorpse: Christians get confused. They think "marriage" is a religious thing, when it's merely a legal contract between two people (which should, thus, not discriminate based on gender). The thing that is religious is a "wedding ceremony".
Nobody is telling Christians that they have to perform same-gender weddings. All anybody is asking for is same-gender marriage (i.e. legal contracts).


Yes, except it's not quite that simple. The wedding ceremony is what seals the legal contract -- getting a marriage license without a ceremony is doesn't count. Couples freelancing outside the church doesn't count either. On the other, secular ceremonies like courthouse weddings are accepted by pretty much all churches. You can almost describe marriage as a joint legal-religious status, since neither element can be separated.

And here's another thing that bugs me: People allow the Christians to control the discussion when they use the term "same-sex marriage." What we're actually talking about is same-gender legal marriage.
What's the difference?


The term was not chosen by its opponents. In this case, 'sex' is being used as a synonym of 'gender.'

If we speak of gender instead of sex, we make it a gender discrimination issue instead of a sexuality issue.

There are two genders -- male and female. Whatever your feelings about same-sex marriage, men and women are not being treated differently.

Finally, like the Romans, I don't think same-gender marriage should have anything to do with sex or even love. Two best friends of any gender should be able to marry if it suits their legal needs. What's wrong with naming your platonic best friend as your legal next-of-kin? What's wrong with making it so the person you trust most can inherit your estate and make important decisions when you're unable to do so?

This is expanding the proposal for same-sex marriage beyond anything envisioned by the gay community. It really seems to undermine the concept of both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. It seems wide open to abuse, and beyond the "why-not" question, the appeal is not really obvious.

Gay people have always had the same right to participate in the institution of marriage -- it's just that the institution itself is and always has been defined as heterosexual across societies regardless of the society's sexual attitudes. The exceptions in the linked article are great historical finds, but they only highlight how isolated and obscure those arrangements were.

Gay people have a perfectly valid argument that since they are not able to marry longstanding partners, they are subject to numerous legal and financial disadvantages including employment benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. Those are important examples on unequal treatment, and they should absolutely be addressed. The question is whether to do that on a purely legal basis or expand the current legal-religious institution.

A lot of opposition to gay marriage is pure bigotry. But I think what's being missed is that marriage is a sacrament in half the church and might as well be in the other half. Rather than separating the two elements, what the current gay marriage legislating is doing is taking one of the holiest ceremonies and applying it to something that is condemned both in both the religious sources and the history of the various faiths. It is an extremely in-your-face way of pursuing very legitimate goals. And IMO, it is much less successful than it would have been to pursue a strategy of keeping the whole issue on a legal, secular basis.
 
2012-05-11 04:25:29 PM

nutkick_42: firefly212: So, the klan meeting in my town (when I lived in Stillwater,OK) when they hung the effigy of a black person and wrote all kinds of anti-gay slurs all over town

I remember that. I don't remember any reports of Klan involvement. The two leading theories I recall were drunk rednecks being drunk rednecks and the on-campus gay rights group (I think it was called SODA maybe?) setting the whole thing up so they would have an excuse to be outraged (this connection made largely due to their overblown reaction to the incident and their history of writing controversial things on the sidewalk).


Idk if we are talking about the same thing, when I was there (99 or 00 maybe, I've lived too many damned places) the people who did it were quite well dressed in their kkk garb, they weren't making any secrets of it.
 
2012-05-11 04:41:07 PM
Marriage predates all current religions and possibly even the concept of religion itself. It is the height of idiocy for a group to claim ownership of something that existed before they did.
 
2012-05-11 05:37:26 PM

firefly212: Idk if we are talking about the same thing, when I was there (99 or 00 maybe, I've lived too many damned places) the people who did it were quite well dressed in their kkk garb, they weren't making any secrets of it.


The incidents I remember happened some time between 2003 and 2007. The Klan incident probably happened before I got there, but I remember an anti-gay chalking and something about the "White Tree" happening when I was there. For the most part, Stillwater's a pretty tolerant town, but every town has its bigots (and it seems those bigots are turning out in record number to vote this year...).
 
2012-05-11 07:12:12 PM

on the road: ZeroCorpse: Christians get confused. They think "marriage" is a religious thing, when it's merely a legal contract between two people (which should, thus, not discriminate based on gender). The thing that is religious is a "wedding ceremony".
Nobody is telling Christians that they have to perform same-gender weddings. All anybody is asking for is same-gender marriage (i.e. legal contracts).

Yes, except it's not quite that simple. The wedding ceremony is what seals the legal contract -- getting a marriage license without a ceremony is doesn't count. Couples freelancing outside the church doesn't count either. On the other, secular ceremonies like courthouse weddings are accepted by pretty much all churches. You can almost describe marriage as a joint legal-religious status, since neither element can be separated.

And here's another thing that bugs me: People allow the Christians to control the discussion when they use the term "same-sex marriage." What we're actually talking about is same-gender legal marriage.
What's the difference?

The term was not chosen by its opponents. In this case, 'sex' is being used as a synonym of 'gender.'

If we speak of gender instead of sex, we make it a gender discrimination issue instead of a sexuality issue.

There are two genders -- male and female. Whatever your feelings about same-sex marriage, men and women are not being treated differently.

Finally, like the Romans, I don't think same-gender marriage should have anything to do with sex or even love. Two best friends of any gender should be able to marry if it suits their legal needs. What's wrong with naming your platonic best friend as your legal next-of-kin? What's wrong with making it so the person you trust most can inherit your estate and make important decisions when you're unable to do so?

This is expanding the proposal for same-sex marriage beyond anything envisioned by the gay community. It really seems to undermine the concept of both same-sex and opposite ...


I'm Canadian and I am from the Province of Saskatchewan. My best friend is gay and he married his husband in B.C. almost the second he could. My parents are lesbians. They waited until it was legal in Saskatchewan until they got married legally. My mom carries her marriage certificate around just in case there is an emergency and visitation might be disputed. You might pick up that I support gay marriage wholeheartedly. I want to say though, I truly appreciate your point of view here. Especially the whole idea 'In your face' portion of your argument. I love it. Thank you for that post, I always like being able to see things from another perspective. I usually assume most reluctance to gay marriage naturally comes from a position of ignorance or fear. Rarely is a coherent argument made from a position of true pragmatism.

Much appreciated. You show up in Green now.
 
Displayed 11 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report